RE: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)

["Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:joseph@codesourcery.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:18 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez (aldyh@redhat.com); Jeff Law;
>rth@redhat.com
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
>> Ok, I was mistaken there. I thought we had to add a changelog entry
>> for every function and not every file. I will fix it in the updated
>> patch I send soon.
>
>For functions in existing files you do need to mention each function - but not for
>new files.
>
>> >create_processor_attribute contains hardcoded references to
>> >x86-specific functionality.  This is not OK; all such target
>> >dependencies need to be kept within the back ends, and handled from
>> >the rest of the compiler via target hooks (in most cases, new target
>dependencies must use target hooks not target macros).
>>
>> The only thing I am doing in that function is to add appropriate
>> attribute. In elemental function, there is a processor clause that
>> will allow users to set the type of processor they want the function
>> compiled for. All I am doing is to map that information to the appropriate
>"arch"
>> attribute. I didn't think it had any back end pecularity.
>
>Concepts such as "pentium_4" are architecture-specific and have no place in
>front-end files.  This whole mapping from one sort of string to another belongs
>within the back end.

Please excuse me if I am "beating this horse to death." I am asking this to make sure I am understanding this correctly before I start re-implementing things. I am not very clear about whether the problem is the function's location or the place where it is called? Can you please clarify? Things like pentium_4 are part of the language  (please see processor clause in the pg 34 of the spec) and all I was doing was to parse that and was doing a string matching and substituting one string for the next. All the processing and picking of instructions are done by the existing backend.

Thanks,

Balaji V. Iyer.


>
>--
>Joseph S. Myers
>joseph@codesourcery.com